Monti’s men accused of whispering campaign

COMMISSIONER Mario Monti’s competition department has been accused of conducting a ’whispering campaign’ against the European Commission’s legal service over the allegedly poor way it has performed in court in two imminent appeals to merger decisions.

The European Court of First Instance will rule next week on two appeals against controversial decisions to block the mergers of French electrical giant Schneider and rival Legrand (22 October) and Swedish packaging firm Tetra Laval and bottle company Sidel (25 October).

Experts say defeat for the Commission in one or both these cases – described this week as a ‘50-50’ chance – would be another bloody nose for Monti and his merger task force after the Court savaged the decision to veto the merger of UK tour operators First Choice and Airtours.

It could also force last-minute changes to reforms to merger procedures due to be unveiled later this year.

But a legal service source told European Voice that senior officials in Monti’s merger task force are already trying to deflect the blame for possible defeat in the two cases.

“Our impression is that, given the tightness of the two cases,

DG Comp is trying to look for culprits just in case things go wrong,” said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He added that “very senior officials from the merger task force” have met with Monti over the issue and are spreading “unfair criticism” of the oral pleadings made by lawyers from the legal service – which always represents the Commission in court cases.

“I am confident we did a very good job…but of course this is worth nothing in the Commission.

“This is about stabbing people in the back.”

Brussels competition lawyers confirmed that they too had started to hear the criticism.

“It is quite common currency within the Commission that the presentation could have been much better,” said Stephen Mavroghenis, an attorney with US firm Howrey.

However Alec Burnside, a partner with Linklaters and Alliance, insisted that any criticism of the legal service would be unfair – even though the court hearings on the cases did not go well, with the judges asking questions that the Commission’s counsel were unable to answer.

“It does seem that the judges came out with some difficult questions for the Commission and that can only have been from their reading of the decision and the written arguments which the merger task force and the legal service will have worked on together.”

“I think the Commission’s decisions in the end will stand or fall on what the Commission wrote at the beginning and not on the oral arguments made in court,” he added.